A user environment, such as a residence or an office building, may include a load control system that may be installed therein for controlling electrical loads. The load control system may include various types of load control devices (e.g., motorized window treatments or lighting control devices) for controlling the electrical loads. The load control devices may be characterized by various types of features including sizes, mounting techniques, colors, load ratings, etc. For example, a motorized window treatment may be configured in various sizes, mounting techniques, colors, etc.
A proposed load control device may be configured/designed by identifying one of a number of options for each feature of the load control device, for example, before the load control device is purchased and installed. In other words, in many cases a user may be able to design a customized device. Some combinations of the features may be compatible with actual product configurations, while others may not. Current software may allow for a user to select from a list of configuration options available for each feature of a load control device and submit the selected features in a proposal to determine whether the selected options are available for configuration of the load control device. For example, a user may select a size of a motorized window treatment, fabric type, motor size, width for each panel, mounting type, top treatment, light block, flap, hanger, operator, power, chain drop, chain type, operator side, brackets, hembar, fabric drop, fabric face, railroading, custom seams, seam location, battens, split top treatment, sill angle, side channel, lineal color, fascia end cap color, mounting spacer, custom light gaps, light gap between panels, width type, operator color, tube size, and coupler type.
Due to the large number of features to be defined for configuring a load control device and the large number of options available for each feature, the memory and processing requirements used for evaluating the valid and invalid combinations for each of these options after the proposal is submitted to determine whether the selected options meet an actual product configuration are inefficient. Additionally, the options selected for the proposed load control device may be incompatible or aesthetically unappealing. For example, the user may select options for the motor size of a window treatment that do not support the size of the window treatment or the weight of the fabric of the window treatment. As the software is evaluating selected options for the features of a proposed load control device as a whole, the display configuration of current software may be inefficient, as the user may have to wait until after options have been selected for each feature before the user is notified that any of the selected features are invalid features for a valid load control device.
Further, due to the validity of the load control device being evaluated after the selection of each of the features, the user may be relatively uninformed regarding the cost of the individual features being selected. Instead, the user may be provided with the cost of the configuration of the control device based on totality of the selected options, though the user may be relatively uninformed as to the cost of each feature. Hence, a user may spend large amounts of time selecting all options to configure a load control device only to then determine that the price of the device exceeds a desired maximum price the user may wish to spend.